Friday, 17 February 2017

Kings House Expense

I must write on an issue that has been making headlines
lately and it has to do with the 40 million dollar allocation that has been
given to the Office of the Governor-General for the purpose of installing a new
elevator in the building and also for the purchase of a new vehicle and the
backlash it has received particularly on social media.

Let me start out by point out that I do support some of the
comments made regarding the nature of the expense, $40 million is an exorbitant
sum and quite frankly I must question
whether or not there was a better way this money could have been allocated, for
example the state of hospitals can be described as deplorable, several
educational institutions are in dire need of an upgrade and not to mention the
far way such a sum could go in dealing with any of these, or at the very least
in part. And given the public outcry I do believe that the government should
reconsider this proposal, after all its not as if government expenditure hasn’t
been adjustment in years before now, so yes they can revisit that one or try to
find a way to cut cost in order to make it more economical.

That said, while I do agree with those who are not in favour
of the expense. There are some only too quick the use the opportunity to
promote a republican agenda, therefore the air must be cleared as to some of
the misinformation out there. First of all is the notion that the getting rid
of the Governor-General would get rid of that expense in the budget is totally
and utterly false. In fact if the Governor-General were to be gotten rid of
tomorrow then a President would immediately take his place as head of state and
the expense would remain either the same or it would be increased. There is statistical
data that shows this, for example the President of Trinidad earns US $ 114, 224
per annum,
whereas in Jamaica, the Governor-General cost per annum is US $ 58,159.
Another example can be drawn between the cases of Haiti and Barbados, whereas
in Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere their president has a salary of
US$60,000 per annum, the
Governor general of the much wealthier Barbados earns US$ 49,214.50 per annum.
What exactly is the point I’m trying to drill here, contrary to popular belief
there is actually no evidence to point to the supposition that a presidency
would be cheaper, in fact what the researchable data does show is that the
governor general costs far less to maintain than it would be under a president.

Another area of misinformation that must be addressed is the
matter of the official residence. It has been assumed by some that if the Crown
were gotten rid of, the King’s House would either be demolished or the property
could be developed into a real estate area or factory, museum or whatever else
one can dream of. This supposition is based on wishful thinking however not
reality, in fact the most likely outcome would be the name of the building
would be changed to reflect the new status quo and the property itself would
continue to serve as the seat of highest office in the land. Again there is a
precedent to support this claim. For example in India, Rashtrapati Bhavan which
used to serve as the residence of the Viceroy of British India has since 1950
been the residence of the President of modern India. Similarly Áras an Uachtaráin which now serves
as the palace of the President of the Irish Republic used to be the Viceregal
Lodge of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under British rule. And these are not
isolated cases either instead this has been tradition in many Commonwealth
countries where the palace of the former royal representative has been
converted to a presidential palace and in most of these cases, their functions
and operations continue almost exactly as they did before, especially in cases
where the former governor general was himself appointed as the new President.
This then serves as overwhelming evidence to prove that any notion that
becoming a republic would cause King’s House to scale down its cost and
operations is actually a fallacy, rooted in supposition and not fact.

And while on the matter of the presidential residence lets
discuss the nature of the presidency itself where there it is commonly thought
that becoming a republic would cause us to move to a US styled presidential
model, where the Prime Minister himself would assume the presidency thus
absorbing the cost. While this has been done in some Commonwealth states, there
again is no evidence to prove that it will happen here. Truthfully every
proposal that is made on this constitutional change is based on the Westminster
system where the head of state and head of government remain as separate
offices. In other words then, there is no real suggestion to have an executive
presidency but rather a ceremonial one, that has been the position taken by
most republican proponents who really don’t have an issue with a parliamentary
form of government only with the Queen’s name being on it, in short they wish
to have all the benefits of a constitutional monarchy without having an actual
monarchy.

Speaking of monarchy, it grieves me to see the level of
ignorance of what the constitution actually says. Nowhere in our laws does it
state that governor general is appointed by the British government, which would
be a gross violation of the constitution and the Jamaica Independence Act. The
Governor General of Jamaica is not and has never been an agent of the United
Kingdom, the law makes it perfectly plain that only the Government of Jamaica
can advise a Queen on the appointment of a Governor General and only they can
advise her to dismiss one. Nor can Her Majesty take it upon herself to appoint
a representative in a unilateral manner since to do would be a violation of her
own coronation oath to govern according to established laws and customs. The
reason for this misconception is of course a lack of understanding on the
concept of the Commonwealth Realms, where more than one sovereign state agree
to share the same monarch and adopt common succession rules. This shared
monarchy is not and should be confused with colonial subjugation since any of
states can opt out of the arrangement and any changes to the arrangement has to
mutually agreed upon by all member states as was seen in 2011 Perth Agreement
where the rules on succession could not be changed unless all the countries
approved the proposed changes. There is no legal or constitutional arrangement
for the governor general to answer to the British authorities, I would have
thought the fact that he was a born and bred citizen of Jamaica would have made
this fact painfully obvious to all.

To conclude, I’ll reiterate my own opposition to the planned
spending increases at King’s House and I still stand in support of those who
propose that the funds be diverted to more salient causes. However unlike some
I would rather vent my displeasure that those who proposed this spending in the
first place rather (i.e. the finance ministry and its technocrats), rather than
confuse the issue by ranting about how we “need a president now”. Quite frankly
given what I see happening in the world’s most famous presidential office now,
the idea that Jamaica could develop into such a system scares me to no end, and
I would therefore urge that any discussion on this going forward are grounded
in empirical facts and not in mere emotional tirades .

About Me

Conservative, Traditionalist Monarchist,Deeply
Religious, Highly Political and most of all true Jamaican who entirely support unity within the British West Indies and the wider Brtish Commonwealth. A keen follower of events not only within the Island or Region but also on a broader international scale